Whether TNIE has become ‘The Last Refuge for these Secular-Lying Scoundrels?’ !!

via H Balakrishnan published on August 5, 2010

Dear Sir,

Reference the ‘ RANT ‘ – ” Saffronites on the Loose “ – (TNIE – 05 Aug).

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state. The Nazi, Joseph Goebbels pithily described propaganda thus. The ‘secularists’ in India, of all hues, are an excellent example of propogating LIES as the TRUTH, since the turn of Independence. Amulya Ganguli is no exception !!

This ‘secular hypocrite’ wrote about how the RSS is worried ” following the arrest of two RSS apparatchitki and the interrogation of two others “.

In an interview to your sister newspaper – Indian Express – on 01 Aug 2010, the RSS spokesperson, Ram Madhav, highlighted the views of the RSS. Some excerpts are in order, if anything, to highlight the ‘loose’ writings of the ‘secular Hypocrite’ Amulya Ganguli.


Q. There are allegations of direct involvement of some individuals affiliated to the RSS in acts of “Hindu terror.” Devendra Gupta, vibhag pracharak, was recently arrested; Lokesh Sharma, who is said to be his accomplice, also under arrest; the late Sunil Joshi;

Ashok Beri and Ashok Varshney, both RSS office-bearers, have been accused of harbouring Gupta while he was on the run; and Sandeep Dange, still on the run, was a vibhag pracharak.

A. Of these, only Devendra Gupta was holding a position of responsibility in the RSS at the time of arrest in April 2010. He was vibhag pracharak. No other person who is accused has had any active role in the RSS either at the time of the arrest or when the alleged acts were committed. – -. Senior RSS leader Indresh Kumar’s name has come up. It has been reported that he was present in the tapes aired as part of a sting operation, in which there is terror talk. Indresh Kumar was not present in those tapes. There is no talk of the RSS. The only person with a parivar link present in the meeting was BL Sharma ‘Prem’ of the BJP. The meeting was held under the banner of “Abhinav Bharat.” We take strong objection to anyone saying that it is an RSS conspiracy.  

Q.Yet is the RSS worried about these charges?

A. We’re not worried for the simple reason that in the history of 85 years, the RSS has seen this kind of vendetta time and again. At the same time, we are conscious of the fact that such propaganda can lead to the RSS image being sullied. We would certainly like to make things clear.

Q. How?

A. Those who know the RSS closely don’t believe in this propaganda. Those who don’t have proximity to the organisation may get carried away. But I hope the media will do its job without bias. We will place the facts as we know them before the people through our own means.




But, to our ‘secular LIARS’ – RSS is ‘worried’ !! Haven’t we heard all this before?

Again, the Mumbai based English daily – DNA – in its edition of 27 Jul 2010, carried an excellent Article by journalist Rajeev Srinivasan, entitled : ” Hindu terrorism doesn’t exist, but do we want one? “.It knocks the ground beneath the ‘secular hypocrites’ like Amulya Ganguli. Rajeev wrote: ” However, in India, so-called ‘secularism’ means precisely

the opposite — the state looks upon every individual primarily based on his religion. For instance, the PM made the statement in December, 2006, that Muslims should have first rights to the resources of the country. This violates the Constitution, but it has become part of the accepted ethos through repetition “.

Again. ” The most blatant example of this propaganda is the current feeding frenzy about ‘Hindu terror’. The fact is that there is practically no history of Hindu terror. Religious terrorism has traditionally been the monopoly of the Abrahamic traditions, including Communism. Monotheists by definition divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’, and demonise the Other, probably a necessary condition for terror “.

Further. ” Compared to all this, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is Hindu terrorism. The so-called Malegaon blast case and other alleged instances of Hindu terrorism languish because of lack of evidence, although, those accused such, as Sadhvi Pragya, are also rotting away in jail. If there are incidents of Hindu violence, these are almost inevitably reactions to terrorism imposed on them”.

Besides. “The moral equivalence drawn between the Abrahmics’ inherent tendency to violence and the non-existent Hindu or Indic terrorism is abhorrent. There is the Panchatantra story about the man with the goat and the three rogues. The rogues convince the gullible man, via the ruse of repeatedly telling him that he is carrying a dog, to abandon the

goat, which of course was their original intent. The rogues in the media and the state are, through repeated assertion, convincing people of the ‘fact’ of Hinduterrorism”.

Lastly. ” Do we want to make it a self-fulfilling prophesy? “




Yes, the ‘secular hypocrite’ Amulya Ganguli?

The next in the ” Secular Hoot & Scoot – Tell Lies and Run Away ” ranting of this ‘secular hypocrite Amulya Ganguli, is the Babri Masjid issue. I throw the gauntlet down at this ‘secular worthy ‘, and challenge him to counter the following which is available in open source literature !!

Here then is what Arun Shourie wrote in the English daily – Indian Express – in its edition of 25 Oct 1990. It was entitled : “Arey Bhai, Masjid Hai Hi Kahaan?” . Shourie wrote, and is worth quoting at some length : ” But why do you refer to it as a mosque at all? Where is the mosque, my friends, when the namaz is not performed? When for forty years idol worship is going on there, what kind of a mosque is it? That is just the temple of our dear Ram. That is not L K Advani talking to V P Singh. It is V P Singh talking to several RSS leaders.” Continuing, ” The elections had not yet been announced. V P Singh had traveled to Bombay to meet the RSS leaders. Persons I know intimately were present throughout the meeting, which was held at his request in Mr Ramnath Goenka’s penthouse at Express Towers. V P Singh said then that as the structure was valued by the Muslims and the site was sacred to the Hindus, he was for Rajmohan Gandhi’s proposal — i.e., for shifting the mosque bricks to another site and constructing the temple at the site. This is in essence what the VHP and the BJP came to espouse, with the improvement that the Hindus shall raise the funds to bear the entire cost of shifting the structure. Later, too, I know from one of the senior most leaders of the BJP, one who measures every word he says, Kidar Nath Sahni, V P Singh used the exact expressions of the BJP leaders. Later still — and I know this directly from my friend Jaswant Singh, the BJP MP and today the Chairman of the Estimates Committee of Parliament – he used the very expressionsto Jaswant Singh. To him V P Singh added that as the structure was a mandir in any case, why “demolish” it? ” Where is the need for demolition?”  V P Singh had asked, ” One shove and it will crumble. If each of you were to carry just one brick home, there will be nothing left there. Nor was there any change in the ensuing months. I know — again from persons who were directly involved that V P Singh did not just endorse the three-point formula which was worked out, he actively participated in devising it. Under it the entire property — i.e. the structure and the land — was to be acquired by the

government. The structure was termed Part A, and the land around it Parts B and C, for reasons we shall just see. All this was worked out between V P Singh and others between Monday, October 15, and Thursday, October 18 .” And then, Shourie wrote: ” Then came a stormy meeting of Muslim leaders with V P Singh. And so around 5 pm V P Singh let it be

known that he had changed his mind. What was the “disputed structure became the “disputed land”. And all lands, the titles to which were in dispute before the Allahabad High Court were now to be taken to be covered by the expression “disputed land. As nothing was to be done to disturb what was “disputed”, this change meant that nothing could be commenced anywhere, not even at the spot where the shilanyas had been done. But once Government acquires the land,” the law officer of the Government explained to him, ” all disputes about its titles would end. There is thus no reason for going back on what has been agreed — about commencing construction. ” Then I won’t acquire the land,” said V P Singh. “ And (late) V.P. Singh was an honourable gentleman. Wasn’t Brutus also honourable?

(REF :http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/articles/19901025.htm



Let us now turn our attention to the ‘Govt. sponsored debates’ on the Babri Masjid issue. nSoon after it took office in Nov. 1990, the Chandra Shekhar government was advised by (late) Shri Rajiv Gandhi to narrow down the Ayodhya dispute to the specific point whether the Babri Masjid had replaced a pre-existing Hindu temple. The First meeting between the VHP and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) took place on 01 Dec 1990 in the presence of Shri Subodh Kant Sahay, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs (MoS), Shri Sharad Pawar, Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and Shri Mulayum Singh Yadav, the CMs of

Maharashtra, Rajasthan and U.P. respectively. After preliminary discussions the meeting was adjourned to 04 Dec 1990. During the second meeting it was AGREED by both sides that (a) both sides will furnish their evidence to the MoS by 22 Dec 1990; (b) the MoS would make photocopies of the evidences by 25 Dec 1990; (c) the two parties would then meet on 10 Jan 1991 for reviewing the evidence.

The VHP Evidence : The evidence submitted by the VHP was precise and within the parameters laid down by the Government. All its documents were centered on the point that the Babri Masjid had replaced a pre-existing Ramjhanmabhoomi Mandir. Moreover the documents were summarized in a covering note setting out clearly the only conclusions that could be drawn.

The AIBMAC Evidence : The evidence submitted by the AIBMAC ‘experts’ was no more than a pile of papers, most of them being newspaper articles written by sundry scribes and prolific in polemics rather than hard facts and rigorous logic. To cite one example from this pile will be useful!! The AIBMAC had submitted as evidence that Ram was born in Nepal, in the Punjab, in Afghanistan, in Egypt, in Varanasi, in Ayodhya at a different site, in some unknown place and finally not at all etc. So,, of each of the 8 ‘evidences’ cited, 7 contradict the other!! Some ‘Eminent Historians’ these, that made the AIBMAC team of ‘experts’!! Rightly has it been termed by many sane scholars as ‘History v/s Causistary’!!

Finding the going getting increasingly tough in the dabate, the AIBMAC unilaterally decided not to turn up for the meeting on 25 Jan 1991. The VHP was present at the appointed place at the appointed hour!! Any dispassionate observer, on examining the

documents presented in the debate and the conduct of both the parties will conclude that the VHP had co-operated with the Govt. all along. It had kept all the dates and provided pertinent evidence all along. The AIBMAC behaviour on the other hand, betrayed from the very start a lack of will for any serious and meaningful dialogue. And yet, the blame must be apportioned on the VHP!! And, the media WILL NOT REPORT THE DEBATES !! Thats ‘secularism’ in India!! JAI HO!!

But, to the ‘secular BRIGANDS’ like Amulya Ganguli – The Sangh Parivar MUST BE BLAMED !! The words ‘ secular ’ and ‘ communal ‘, in the Indian context, are not even remotely related to the meanings which the English dictionary assign to them. In short and in the Indian context, these are the very opposite of those stated in any English dictionary. To amplify. In India, one is NOT ‘secular’, unless one harbours a deep-rooted anti-Hindu animus and expresses it frequently, like a stuck-in-the groove gramophone record of  yesteryears!! Besides, in any street riot, the RSS or the extended Sangh  Parivar must be

blamed immediately and repeatedly. It is akin to V.I. Lenin telling – “First, lets stick the convicts badge on him, and after that, we’ll examine the evidence”.!! In a similar vein, is the Indian definition of the term ‘communal’, and is a logical corollary of the

above understanding of the term ‘secular’. The dictionaries define the word ‘communal’ as ‘pertaining to a community, owned in common, shared’. But, in India, Hindus have only to say that they belong to a community, and that they share a common culture. Lo and Behold! The ‘secular Heavens come crashing down’ in a ‘secular cacophony’of invectives!!

The ‘rantings’ of Amulya Ganguli reminded me of the ‘golden words’ of the ‘Intellectual Kshatriya’ (late) Sita Ram Goel, in his excellent – ” Perversion of India’s Political Parlance”Voice of India, New Delhi – (1984) : ” A close scrutiny of the Leftist
Language shows that it has an affinity with the languages used earlier by Islamic, Christian, and British imperialism. Most of the time, the Leftists are poor in facts and logic but prolific in foul language”. Amulya Ganguli’s Article stands testimony to this !!

Lastly. I read almost all the English dailies of India ‘online’. Of late, I find that no other newspaper publishes the ‘Opinions’ of Amulya Ganguli.This makes me wonder whether TNIE has become ‘The Last Refuge for these Secular-Lying Scoundrels?’ !!



Welcome to Haindava Keralam! Register for Free or Login as a privileged HK member to enjoy auto-approval of your comments and to receive periodic updates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

seventeen − 2 =


Latest Articles from Media Watch

Did You Know?